We’re exercising our freedom and taking off the 3rd to celebrate the 4th. See you Monday!Hide

NY Times Changes Its Tune On TPP; Highlights Cronyism, Lack Of Transparency As Problems

from the getting-it-right-second-time-around dept

Last fall, many folks who follow these issues were somewhat dismayed by a weird NY Times editorial that appeared to endorse the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, while basically ignoring the many complaints about it. It wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement, but it did clearly support the agreement, concluding with:
A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks.
The endorsement resulted in the Times being rightly mocked for endorsing a secretive agreement that the NY Times editorial writers had not seen (indeed, could not see). Apparently, some folks on the editorial staff took at least some of this criticism to heart, and have now released a new editorial that is much more critical of the TPP -- in particular, the process around it.

That is, while the editorial still (rightly, in our opinion) supports the idea of lowering key trade barriers, it finally acknowledges that a lot of what the TPP is doing has little to do with removing trade barriers, and plenty to do with helping corporations push through global regulations that it could not get adopted domestically. Furthermore, it directly takes on the fact that the USTR is ridiculously secretive on the negotiation with everyone except big businesses that have direct access:
The Obama administration has revealed so few details about the negotiations, even to members of Congress and their staffs, that it is impossible to fully analyze the Pacific partnership. Negotiators have argued that it’s impossible to conduct trade talks in public because opponents to the deal would try to derail them.

But the administration’s rationale for secrecy seems to apply only to the public. Big corporations are playing an active role in shaping the American position because they are on industry advisory committees to the United States trade representative, Michael Froman. By contrast, public interest groups have seats on only a handful of committees that negotiators do not consult closely.

That lopsided influence is dangerous, because companies are using trade agreements to get special benefits that they would find much more difficult to get through the standard legislative process. For example, draft chapters from the Pacific agreement that have been leaked in recent months reveal that most countries involved in the talks, except the United States, do not want the agreement to include enforceable environmental standards. Business interests in the United States, which would benefit from weaker rules by placing their operations in countries with lower protections, have aligned themselves with the position of foreign governments. Another chapter, on intellectual property, is said to contain language favorable to the pharmaceutical industry that could make it harder for poor people in countries like Peru to get generic medicines.
The editorial further notes the problematic "corporate sovereignty" provisions that allow companies the ability to sue countries for regulations they dislike, noting how it could be abused by banks to block financial regulations (as an example). It further questions some of the predictions of economic benefits from these agreements.

Towards the end, it notes (as many of us have been pointing out for years) that the Obama administration, and the USTR in particular, only have themselves to blame for this mess:
To a large extent, the administration has only itself to blame. By keeping secret so much information about trade negotiations, which have ceased to be purely about trade matters like tariffs and quotas, the government has made itself a target for criticism. Mr. Obama and Mr. Froman argue that their critics have misunderstood or misrepresented their intentions. But that is precisely why the president should provide answers to the questions people have raised about these agreements. It is time for him to make a strong case for why these new agreements will be good for the American economy and workers.
Of course, considering how many times this has been pointed out, and the USTR's only response is to push out blatant misrepresentations of the truth, it seems unlikely that anything is going to change any time soon.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Apr 21st, 2014 @ 6:41pm

    Good...

    Glad to see that even the NY Times is understanding how bad this is...

    Makes one wonder why they didn't see it before though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Beech, Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 1:18am

    Re: Good...

    It's not hard to see why they thought it was a good idea. The whole way it's presented is to make it sound like a good idea. "Trade agreement," "lowering tariffs," "protecting jobs." These are the taglines given to the media by the government, and since real research is hard, they took the buzzwords and ran with them. For this agreement the devil is in the details, and the details happen to be hush-hush. But what? You expected a reporter to dig up one of the leaked draft copies and wade through the legalese to ACTUALLY understand the agreement instead of just rushing to print with whatever the USTR just told them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 1:46am

    Re: Re: Good...

    Even for their earlier editorial it was a devil in the details. They describe "A good agreement" as opposed to anything in existance. Very subtle way of including plausible deniability and making the editorial meaningless.

    Or in other words: The earlier editorial was a disgrace to the journalistic profession because of the lack of research and the priority it was given. The new editorial could have worked well in tandem with the other!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 2:19am

    If these trade agreements are good for the majority of Americans, why is Obama and the USTR afraid people will try to derail the agreement?

    You'd think they would want people to examine the documents, so they could see for themselves how wonderful the proposed deal is going to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 3:21am

    Re:

    Because it's only for the monied people. Not for the proles and consumers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    beech, Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 5:24am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 2:19am

    That's because some "special interest" "rabble-rousers" would use the details of the agreement to "confuse" people into thinking it's bad, when it's really so good, guys, we just can't tell you why.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Magill (profile), Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 10:19am

    "Mr. Obama and Mr. Froman argue that their critics have misunderstood or misrepresented their intentions. "

    Well yeah, when you won't explain your intentions claiming they are "secret," anyone can assign ANY intention -- evil or positive to your actions. Duh!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    That quote stood out to me as well. I had two reactions to it. The first is much like yours, but I also had a second thought. What they claim is being misunderstood is "their intentions". However, intentions are only a side show in the first place. I don't care one bit what their "intentions" are. I care about what the language of the TPP actually allows.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 1:01pm

    NYT has become so pathetic lately. I'm never upvoting any story from anymore wherever I see it, no matter how important it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Elizabeth Mueller, Apr 23rd, 2014 @ 9:40am

    We will not be colonized by 600+ transnationals.

    We are conducting an action to STOP TPP. We call Congress, daily. Please take the time to visit us and join the fight!

    More info:

    http://www.themichiganvoice.com/2014/02/trans-pacific-partnership/

    Our event:

    https://www.facebook.com/events/359507710860008/?ref=51&source=1

    By the way, you may find this interesting...

    "Below is a list of 605 corporate advisers who have been allowed access to the TPP text..."

    http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Within Reason, Apr 24th, 2014 @ 6:02am

    Re: We will not be colonized by 600+ transnationals.

    I'm in. Come on, people, this is our chance to make a difference.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Ellie (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 1:43am

    Secret negotiations

    This is really awful:
    The Obama administration has revealed so few details about the negotiations, even to members of Congress and their staffs, that it is impossible to fully analyze the Pacific partnership. Negotiators have argued that its impossible to conduct trade talks in public because opponents to the deal would try to derail them.
    That isn't how U.S. government works. There are always opponents to legislation by some members of Congress. Hiding the details from them, and the public, is wrong, and very ominous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.